Okay, but what exactly about the law failed? What needs to change?
Bundy claims it's that Federal Government took ownership of the land in the beginning and never gave it back to Nevada. Or rather, more accurately, he refuses to recognize that Federal government ever took possession of the land, even though his family previously paid grazing fees to the Federal government. That seems like a self-serving, revisionist stance to me.
Is it the EPA overreach on the turtle? Okay, in hindsight that does sound like overreach. I think we need better checks and balances on the EPA. But again, this was Federal owned land. Ownership conveys the right to do with the land what you want.
Maybe it's that the Federal government owns as much land as it does. That seems to be a sore point with a lot of people out west. There is a legislative remedy for that though. And if the government does sell off it's vast holdings, is there going to be enough water resources for the increased population? Something to think about.
Maybe it's that the BLM shows up with military hardware. Perhaps it should have been left to the local sheriff to enforce. But the BLM claims there were threats. Would it be any more acceptable if the Fed's had ordered the Sheriff to deputize enough people to overcome the threat?
There is court history on “vested use” where water is concerned. Land cases have been decided on that case history.
The law is often an ass.
Being a “law and order” absolutist does not make you a patriot or a conservative.